The firm’s Manhattan office successfully argued a Summary Judgment Motion in New York County. The Court additionally found that our client was entitled to contractual indemnification from the second third-party defendant. Pursuant to the Order, our client is entitled to reimbursement of a settlement with plaintiffs in excess of $3 million plus over three years of interest.
This action stemmed from an injury to Plaintiff, an employee of another third-party defendant, who was working an HVAC system. Our client had been hired by the owner of the building as the general contractor for the renovation work. Our client in turn hired the second third-party defendant for the HVAC work. Subsequently the second third-party defendant hired the third-party defendant to perform the steamfitters’ mechanical work of the HVAC work. The original claim by Plaintiff’s against our client was settled. A jury trial was held to address our client’s contractual defense and indemnity claims against all of the third-party defendants.
Partner Bill Joyce argued that second third-party defendant agreed to assume the defense and indemnification of our Client via the purchase orders for the mechanical scope of the work, including any accidents involving their subcontractors. It is well established that where an indemnification clause is clear and unambiguous, summary judgment should be granted in favor of the indemnitee. He further argued that where sophisticated parties negotiated in good faith at arm’s length an indemnification provision, the agreement is enforceable, thus it was clear that the third-party defendant’s employee sustained an injury “arising out of” his work for the second third-party defendant under the contract with out client. As such, our client was entitled to indemnification from the second third-party defendant and reimbursement of its defense costs.
The court held that absent any other option, our client’s summary judgment motion was granted, and our judgment against the second third-party defendant was granted.